As an example, this is the charter from our (Rave/San/Spook) term
WherePolicy: Informed
Complaints: Informed, action taken against an admin by upheld complaint unanimous
Ban appeals: Uninformed
Candidacy Acceptance: Unanimous
AC -> Trial: old system (Unanimous to pass, extend trial on majority)
TA -> GA: old system (Unanimous to pass, extend trial on majority)
GA -> special: Unanimous
Deadminning: Unanimous
Batcaves: Uninformed (batcaves are private discussions between headmins and specific admins for anything from promotion to review to explanations as to the decision to deadmin someone)
For AC -> TA promotions, and policy discussions, if a headmin goes fully radio silent for longer than two weeks, move to uninformed voting, with the same caveat for AC promotion delays if it's 1 yay 1 nay
Single - headmins can do whatever
Uninformed - a simple majority of headmins can take action, whenever
Informed - a majority of headmins can take action, but all headmins should get a chance to state their opinions
Unanimous - totality of headmin support is required
As potential headmins you'll need to work with the other elected candidates, but how much consensus you need for individual decisions will be up to the three of you. What does your ideal charter look like, how much input / oversight do you want on your choices from your peers and how much oversight do you want over them? If fast response times are your priority, are you interested in going down to single headmin requirements for anything?
As with my other question, there are no wrong answers here. This is purely a chance for you guys to think about something you'll need to decide on as a headmin well before its deadline, and have a think about where you stand on it in relation to each other.
Maybe this term we'll see the mythical single-headmin on everything charter...